should the U.S. allow another country to control our ports?

older polls Forum

Chime in on this one.

I said yes like I have said before the security of the port would still be the responsability of the United States not the owners of the ports. Take the ports that were meant to be bought by the UAE are they currently crawling with British security, police, customs and immigartions officials?

Secondly this company although owned or partly owned by the UAE has many ports all over the world and there has not been a terror problems.

I voted no. The percentage of ships and cargo that are searched is miniscule. We can not afford to turn over control of our ports to another nation. Homeland security means that WE should control our ports and boarders. No one will protect us like other Americans. Plus, those jobs could be filled by Americans.

But it is still Americans that are doing the essential things, like I said policing, customs etc etc can only be done buy homeland security. All we are talking about is changing the management not an open gat for terrorism. You are right only a small number of ships and cargo are serched so a bomb or whatever could still get through right? it's a lottery either way on wether or not certain ships etc are searched and that probably won't change under the new management.

You have to ask yourself are you as an american citizen happy with the way your ports are guraded? if the answer is yes then why do you have a problem because that security situation cannot be changed unless by an act of government. If you are unsatisifed with security then that proves that regardless of who owns this port the securoity situation is poor.

This is a no brainer.

And it is interesting that someone of a foreign nationality would vote yes.
Surprising, no, but interesting, yes.

And if Americans were concerned about how safe their ports are...why would they feel any safer having a foreign country providing security?

First off ports where I live are foreign owned in fact all round the world and yes even in the US including the damn port in question is foreign owned. the reason I voted yes was simple because in all the cases not one has been used to launch a terror attack.

Now to the security I don't know any other way to say it so I will try once more in big letters to help you out THE US GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SECURITY OF THE PORTS NOT THE OWNERS OF THE PORT what exactly do you think you have homeland security, coastguard and border protection for?

In my opinion this IS a no brainer. If the UAE takes over the running of the ports, there will be Arab employees. They would be much more likely to cooperate with a terrorist who would want to smuggle whatever into the US. I can see a plot to get a low profile Arab who seems to have an exlemplary background hired by the UAE who then compromises our security processes.
It may be true that no problems have arisen in other countries where Arabs are in charge, but this is America and many of them hate us enough to do anything to cause huge problems. After 9/11 how much more does it take to make us aware that we are not the darlings of the Arab world? It's absolutely incredible that this deal would even be considered. And even more incredible that our president and the Secretary of Defense didn't even have input into it. How could members of Bush's Administration make a deal like that and not inform the White House? The Bush Administration has again shot itself in the foot.

I agree with the big letters lodgebo, that's why I voted 'no.'

A port in the US is a port in the US...

Why farm security out to a foreign national?

One step closer to world governement...

OH MY GOD security is not farmed out what part of the US controls the security do you not understand?

nikiTA I want to try and break this down into two parts because at the monent one of us ain't getting this.

Part 1: Imagine a British company manages a port and they are involved with certain managerial tasks probably the same mundane tasks that we all do and a few industry specific tasks.

Part 2: However, the security in this port is run by the US government's homeland security, the customs and border protection arm of the department and, of course, as with all ports the coastguard backed up and if needed by the police and navy and the rest of homeland security.

Now if this deal goes ahead only part 1 will change and even then all that will happen is that the word British company will be replaced by UAE compnay. Part 2 stays exactly the same; therefore I assume you have no trust in your own country's security.

A port in the US is a port in the US.

It's in America, it belongs to America, and should be controlled by Americans.

Also the Longshoreman will remain American.

Two things I don't get 1. What do you think will happen if the UAE firm gets the port and 2. considering the fact that P&O have to get rid of this port and now nobody wants it do we just shut it down and make people redundant as opposed to selling it to this company?

I am answering the question: " Should the U.S. allow a foreign country to control our ports?"

And my opinion is "no."

There are already foreign contries that control ports, I don't want this foreign country to control the ports. I give it the big no.

-HECK!

Well the question is not clear on what part of running we are talking about. If we are talking about running security, it is a no starter because the US will always run security. If we are talkling about running ports, then it has already happened and will continue to happen.

But what would you have this port close down as opposed to having yet another foriegner own it?

Just a side issue here and it relates to trust -- how many boats do you think have sailed to the US from ports run by this company?

Lodgebo, we ain't whistling Dixie here.
We are flying the stars and stripes.

We're talking about whether the US should allow another country to control our ports.

In my book that includes security, maintenance of the docks, itineraries, financial, everything. And I mean everything. Anything short of that is risky. And we all know that the US is at risk right now for every terrorist in the world to come at our doorstep. Now, why in the world would we want furrin nationals in control of our gates?

Everyone knows that whoever controls the means of transportation controls the nation,

Everyone knows that it's the Navy that is the more important of the Armed Forces.

Now, why would we want some furrin nationals (I don't care if they're Canadian, for Pete's sakes) in control of our means of transportation and spying on our ships going to and fro?

No makey the sense.

I voted "No" on this, though I support Bush in most everything, I think he is wrong on this one. I don't know what he is trying to do, make them happy,

try to prove he is not a racist,

I dunno.


Whatever the underlying reason is, it just feels wrong, and I have to admit, if this was a liberal democrat doing this, I would be all over it.


There is something going on behind the scenes, some kind of secret deal involving oil or something like that, that is causing my bud Bush to do this. I dunno what it is.

I don't mind if Britain, or another country takes care of shipping, but not anyone from the middle east. Anyone can call that racist all they want, maybe it is a little, but it's also common sense.

Lodgebo, the problem is that there is not that much security at the ports. They only scan a small percentage of things that come into the country. Having a country with a spotty record could put us in jeopardy. One employee placed in the right area could help smuggle in items for a dirty bomb. The forgein country does not have the same loyalty to us as a U.S. firm would. Stop exporting America, keep the jobs here, and keep U.S. citizens in charge of our ports and boarders.
http://bestsmileys.com/backgrounds/17.gif

Well look at the facts first off security if there is not that much security at your ports then that is a travesty from a country that is a target for every terrorist, hell you moan about the UAE security measures maybe knowingly letting terrorists in ( would not happen) and you can't secure the ports yourself hmm I think the word is hypocrites.

secondly if they only scan a few things then a bomb or something could be sent through the ports right now and make it through right? so there would be no diffrence in who the owners were.

As for this spotty record have you looked at this organisation or not? they are a stand alone group and in the years they have been in business and they have operations on every continent bar Africa they have never suffred a terror attack or have been accused of helping terrorists. As for the UAE yes two terrorists were from there but they were not sent by the government and as a stand alone the organisation are not government influnenced.

The employees are going to be American they have said that and again when it comes to letting people live and work in the US that is the responsibility of immigration ( you know the guys that make you want to leave the US almost as soon as you arrive) again you could not smuggle radioactive material in a boat if you do some research you will see that your coastguard scan all ships for radiation ( a mammoth mission but they do it) and they flag all ships from the middle east or that are registred in the middle east. Also in terms of people smuggling things in what to stop a terrorist sympathiser living in the US getting a job and smuggling things in?

Are you saying that the UK firm is not loyal to the US? they have been there a few years and have paid and employed your countrymen now they have financial difficulties and need the money from the sale. If we go by your idea why does every multinational just not leave because in time of trouble they might not be loyal and hell you never know who these foreign devils are employing.

Also who's to say that it would be an Arab doing the hands on work? in these days when MNC's rule the business world and have many staff you could end up with a UK, Australian or yes maybe an American manager how would you feel then.

lodgebo:

Point 1) I read in the newspaper that there will be Arab employees at these ports. Don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, that's a pretty good source for possible serious hanky-panky. Yes, Yes, I know..........an American could sell out his country too and co-operate with Arab terrorists. But it's not nearly so likely as if there are Arabs working.

Point 2) I think by now we all understand that it is not intended for the Arab company to be in charge of security. Please don't continue to stress that point as if we're all too stupid to understand it.

Point 3) I really agree with Whidden that having someone from a middle eastern country in charge of these ports feels WRONG!!
The Saudi's are supposed to be our ally too. Does anyone really believe that they are?

Point 4) I too believe that something about this whold deal smacks of secrecy on the part of the government. How is it possible that a member of Bush's administration could broker this thing without discussing it with the President and Congress.
I just don't believe that happened. Somebody made a deal for something to be gained from it. Oil? Iraq? Iran? I'm not smart enough to figure that out, but I have to be suspicious of how it all went down.

Point 5) President Bush's threat to veto any bill that gets passed to stop it from happening. Is this supreme arrogance on his part? Motivated by a great payoff? Why does the government think it's such a good thing for us?

To answer your points:

1. From what I heard there will be no Arabs working in the port maybe at managerial level ( I'm not stupid enough to think that there will be no Arabs in what will be an Arab owned port) but not physically in the port doing the hard work. Your average worker will remain American. Plus any Arabs coming in to the country will have to have immigration checks right?

2. Well the majority of people's first concern was security and if someone does not understand something you have to tell them again and again until they understand it.

3. Well I don't know where the Saudis came from ( Saudi I presume) but this is a company from the United Arab emirates (UAE).

As fir the war on terror well I like you don't know much about UAE's role in the war on terror, I do know that the US does consider them if not an ally a friend and there are many Americans that live and work in the UAE how many opf them have been targeted?

The thing is that Whiddens statement could set a benchmark what's next no Arabs or people of Arab descent or this who have relations in the ME can be managers or can work for the government or the police or the army or any high responsibility or security jobs?

4. Maybe there is a secret plot going on but I ask does every sale like this in the US have to go to congress or is it because an Arab nation is involved? for example if a German firm bought the port would you expect it to go to the President? did it go to the President when P&O bought the port? As for oil well I doubt it US already get's some oil from there, Iraq can't see any reason and Iran well UAE has it's own disopute with Iran over it's occupation of the Tunb Lands.

5. What if it's not about a payoff for Bush? what if just if after looking at the reports etc etc the government actually have seen that this might be a good deal for all involved.

1) Arabs working at the ports: Yes? or No?
According to the newpaper article I read, there will be Arab employees working at the ports whether in managerial positions or as worker bees -- makes no difference. They would still be in charge of something that could be compromised.
It certainly doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy that incoming Arabs would be Immigration checked. We all know the record on Immigration checks.

2) I concede your point about informing people that Arabs would not be in charge of security. We get it already. Hopefully that is true.

3) I do understand that this company is from the United Arab Emerites (sp?) which is located to the east of Saudi Arabia. I also understand that they are thought of as our friends and allies. My only point is that Saudi Arabia is generally thought of as an ally. I repeat: Does anyone believe that they actually are friends and allies other than on paper?
I don't know if there is a secret plot going on. I'm sure it's one of those things we will never know for sure, but I strongly suspect that there is. SOMEBODY SOMEHOW is going to gain SOMETHING from this deal and I don't believe it's going to be the United States of America.

4) I don't know if every sale of this type goes to Congress or the President. THIS one certainly should have and Congress thinks so too.
I never knew that the U.S. didn't operate its own ports until now. I would not have been uneasy knowing G.B. operated it for us. Or Germany. Or Ireland. Or Spain. Or anybody but an Arab nation and one or two others. (North Korea comes to mind.)

5) If it IS a good deal for the US, the president should have stepped up and said so before news of this got out. Since he claims he didn't know about it until it was signed, sealed & delivered, he couldn't have done that. And the fact that he didn't know about it until it was done is the most incredible part of this whole thing.

With all the talk about the responsibility of government, I think the ports are important for government to have oversight over.

I voted no. Not because of racism. It's because there has to be at least one American who has the capability of running our ports.
I was shocked to find out that the Brits owned this. WTF are we doing?
I realize they don't own the land or run the security or the dock workers. Those are ALL American. What bothers me is that Americans don't run it. Period.
I hate out sourcing of any kind. I am also against B1 Visas that allow foreigners to work here and take our tech jobs away indefinatley. It has to end.

You either believe in the American way of doing business, free market economics or you don't. You can't pick and chose who owns what to suit yourself, or everyone would want to do it and then how would the stock market manage? The Masters of the Universe have spoken and Bush is a listening. Wall Street demands it!!

They would not control our ports. They would control terminals within the ports. Nevertheless, I, like USA1, voted no for other reasons not having anything to do with security—which is really not an issue in this case.

If we're getting nutty over a different foreign-based company running the same ports, wait until the general public starts doing research and finds out how many foreign owned companies are around. Boooooooooy howdy.

-HECK!

I heard somewhere that Arabs own all that prime farmland in El Centro, California where they grow 45% of the world's vegetables. I've always thought that was kind of scary.

There are 5 to 8 million Muslims in the US.
Over 2 million Muslims are Black.
There are over a million Arabs living in the US, some Christian, some Muslim, some no doubt atheist or agnostic.
They all work somewhere including these docks.

Anyone can own anything, anywhere today. The ports take on new owners and the workers who work on these ports already work there and are not changing. It's just business, which as everyone should know, is far more important than the "war on terror".

I think Bush is trying to convince or "claim" the US isn't viewing this as a race issue. Dubai is basically giving us time to prove it which, we won't if this falls apart. Though I don't know how the government could actually stop the process as I beleive it is a done deal and the UK company is just waiting for the check in the mail.

If this gets pressure from congress and the deal does get squashed somehow, we will be in a world of hurt on the war on terrorism.
Changing the structure to make Dubai accountable for anything different thatn the UK was held to as result of this takeover will also cause some racist element to be exposed.

This will be one of those, "damned if we do and damned if we don't".

Well I read that P&O still intend to sell to this company regardless of what the US thinks, the deal is expected to go ahead by the end of the month.

The questions is of course what happens when P&O sell all these ports to the Dubai company? if the US still refuses to let them run the port they would either have to buy the port of this compmany at a hugely inflated price or the port would have to close.

Not all Arabs are muslims.
Nor are all muslims Arabs.

I could care less what color you are in work, friendship or anything else.
I do however care if you are a muslim.

I think there is definitly some prejudice going about. If you look at this company or visit thier webpage you will see a company that is succesful, very profitbale has good worker relations and a good security record, a company that is willing to put money into these ports. However all that gets put aside because the company is from the Middle East. Thats just bad business sense.

Good points Kerry02, but it's not all Arabs that will do us harm whenever and wherever. It's those fanatical, religious zealots that would try and combat the west, just like they always have.

-HECK!

Gee, only 9 people have chimed in on this poll. C'mon folks.
Weigh in on this. It's a fascinating subject.

Dubai Firm to Give Up Stake in U.S. Ports

By DAVID ESPO and ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON - Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports.

"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," the firm's top executive, H. Edward Bilkey, said in an announcement that capped weeks of controversy.

Relieved Republicans in Congress said the firm had pledged full divestiture, a decision that one senator said had been approved personally by the prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.

The announcement appeared to indicate an end to a politically tinged controversy that brought President Bush and Republicans in Congress to the brink of an election-year veto battle on a terrorism-related issue.

A leading congressional critic of the ports deal, Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), applauded the decision but said he and others would wait to see the details. "It would have to be an American company with no links to DP World, and that would be a tremendous victory and very gratifying," said the New York Republican, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

After weeks of controversy — and White House veto threats that spokesman Scott McClellan renewed at midmorning Thursday — the end came unexpectedly.

The House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 on Wednesday to block the deal, and GOP congressional leaders privately informed the president Thursday morning that the Senate would inevitably follow suit. Senate Democrats clamored for a vote, increasing pressure on Senate Republicans to abandon the president.

It was unclear how DP would manage the planned divestiture, and Bilkey's statement said its announcement was "based on an understanding that DP World will not suffer economic loss."

The firm finalized its $6.8 billion purchase Thursday of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British firm that through a U.S. subsidiary runs important port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. It also plays a lesser role in dockside activities at 16 other American ports.

Despite the furor, the company's U.S. operations were never the most prized part of the global transaction. DP World valued its rival's American operations at less than 10 percent of the nearly $7 billion total purchase.

But that portion of the deal set off a political chain of events unlike any other in Bush's five years in office. Republicans denounced the deal, saying they were worried about the effects it would have on efforts to make ports safer from terrorist threats. Democrats did likewise, and capitalized on the issue as well as a way to narrow the polling gap with the GOP on issues of national security.

Bush defended the deal, calling the United Arab Emirates a strong ally in the war on terror and pledging to cast a veto if Congress voted to interfere.

Senate Republicans initially sought to fend off a vote to block the deal, and the administration agreed to a 45-day review of the transaction. That strategy collapsed on Wednesday with the vote in the House Appropriations Committee.

"This should make the issue go away," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who was one of the GOP leaders who discussed the ports controversy with Bush at the White House during the day.

Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., provided the first public word of the firm's switch, when he went to the Senate floor and read aloud from its statement.

Warner said that Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum, prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, "advised the company ... that this action is the appropriate course to take."

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a chief critic of the deal, reacted cautiously.

"This is obviously a promising development, but the devil's in the details," he said. "Those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World."
--------

-HECK!

Apparently even though it's a stand alone company the UAE government is absoutly furios at what is seen as "one way realtions" with the US.
You can see thier point UAE is a good friend when the US needs a place for the navy to dock thier boats and a great place for sailors to take leave, a huge friend when the US needs oil, a trusted friend when the US needs an extra voice in OPEC and a vital friend in the war on terror and lets not forget an economic friend when they buy all those 777's from Boeing of course UAE does not have to do any of the above UAE does not need to have US navy in it's ports, India and China need oil and that extra voice in OPEC, they may see the war on terror as being aginst them after the reasons given for the port deal collapse so why help? and Boeing is not the only airline manufactirer in the world.
Now I don't know what they are going to do if anything but if they even take away one of these things it will hamper the US a lot more than if they owned a few ports. If nothing else I would not be asking for any favours if I was Bush right now.

Yesterday I saw President Bush on TV asking ,"Why, if the US trusted the Brits to run our ports would we not trust the Arabs to do the same thing?" If the President was asking that question with a straight face, he's even more out of touch than we previously thought.

Kerry02 as an American how would you feel if the UAE cust off some or all of the diplomatic ties I mentioned earlier?
DO you think that they (UAE) are right is the relation with the US a one way relationship? #
Do you think it is a smart move for the US economy that your government is effectivley telling Arab companies that thier business and money is not welcome in the USA.

I don't think we told them that their investments and their money is not welcome in the US. There are tons of Arab investments in the US. We didn't scuttle those. We just didn't want Islamic radicals involved with the running of our ports. We have every reason to be suspicious of them. They gave us those reasons.

There will be backlash for sure. Whatever we have to pay, short of more Islamic terrorism, will be worth it. At least, for once, the American people felt strongly enough about something to pull together and say "no" to the politicians.